nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED vs 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED ??

[swimcraze]

hi,

anyone has tried comparing the quality output of the 2 lens?

any comments?

thanks!

[_espn_]

I doubt it would be very different in the final output, the additional 65mm probably hits f/5.6 already on the 18-135, it seems to be taking over the 24-120 range.

Probably the only thing you can think of is the additional 65mm at the teleend for more reach.

Focusing is pretty ok on the 18-135 when I tested it off the D80 though.

[Scaglietti]

I will be doing a comparison soon...

[_espn_]

Originally Posted by Scaglietti I will be doing a comparison soon...

Hope to see it soon.

[swimcraze]

Originally Posted by Scaglietti I will be doing a comparison soon...

cool!! hope to see it soon too.

thanks!

[ellery]

took a look at the lens and the d80 yesterday. Impressive for both. Was very surprised to find that Nikon does listen to the howls that came when they lauched the 18-55 and the 55-200 with only partil afs.

The lens may well be a better alternative than the 17-70 despite the fact that this has a metal mount with this mounted on the body you are not likely to change lens except for low light work.

Surprisingly the D80 feels better than a D200. The lcd screen views for lack of a better word - more realistic to what you just shot.

Grin looks like if the budget cam make it it will be a D80 kit not a D200 body.

Look foward to see the comparisons too.

[economy_rice]

I've got one myself. Broadly, image quality looks similiar to the 18-70. Its f3.5-4.2 up to the 55mm range so its already better than the 18-55 which people mistakenly believe - is this lens's cousin. Focuses fast and quiet unless you are at 100mm and beyond. I've got reasonably sharp images at f5.6 at smaller focal lengths.

Its a true AF-S.

18mm is distorted but thats always the case with kit lens. CA is reasonably well controlled, (not like the www.dcresource.com examples), i've even got some shots of trees and buildings against clipped skies without any.

I'm happy enough with it that I probably won't get the 18-200, and save up instead for the 17-55 or 12-24.

[simon80]

the price of the 18-135?

[zaxh81]

Originally Posted by simon80 the price of the 18-135?

Yes,interested in the price too.

[scandisk]

should be close to $500 I guess....

[swimcraze]

Originally Posted by Scaglietti I will be doing a comparison soon...

any updates???

[ellery]

Originally Posted by zaxh81 Yes,interested in the price too.

cathay name a price of about $600+ for the lens. Or you could wait for the kit owners to sell theirs.

[Scaglietti]

Originally Posted by swimcraze any updates???

I did shots with both 18-70 and 18-135 recently. However, the comparison shots were not comprehensive enough to conclude.

My impression/observation was:

1. Picture quality of both is quite equivalent. At the prices that both lens are selling at, I think both are good value for money lenses.

2. Built of the 18-135 is slightly poorer due to (a)its plastic lens mount (compared to metal on the 18-70) and (b)absense of distance marking. However, this has made the 18-135 even lighter than the 18-70.


3. At 70mm, the minimum aperture of the 18-135 is already at f/5.6.

4. Of course, 18-135 is giving you significantly longer reach compared to 18-70 with seemingly equal picture quality.

BC

[Hobbesyeo]

Good stuff... thanks for sharing. The plastic mount is a little disappointing tho.

[_espn_]

Originally Posted by Hobbesyeo Good stuff... thanks for sharing. The plastic mount is a little disappointing tho.

With the weight, the type of mount is nothing to worry about lah